How does Wawrinka's record after Grand Slam win compare

[McEnroeisanartist]

I was wondering how Wawrinka's win/loss record after winning the Australian Open compares to other one slam winners players in the last 25 years.

Since winning the Australian Open, Wawrinka is 26-15.

How the other players fared to the end of the season that they won their Grand Slam in:

Chang - 1989 French Open - 26-11
Gomez - 1990 French Open - 7-16
Muster - 1995 French Open - 44-10
Krajicek - 1996 Wimbledon - 12-12
Korda - 1998 Australian Open - 22-21
Moya - 1998 French Open - 20-16
Ivansevic - 2001 Wimbledon - 13-11
Johannson - 2002 Australian Open - 20-22
Costa - 2002 French Open - 9-12
Ferrero - 2003 French Open - 27-14
Roddick - 2003 US Open - 10-6
Gaudio - 2004 French Open - 15-11
Del Potro - 2009 US Open - 5-5

 

[NatF]

Is that just till the end of the season they were in?

Might be better to do it till the same slam the next year...

 

[joeri888]

Almost all are pretty horrible.

 

[dudeski]

Where is Gaudio? Yep, Gaston "I lose 6-0 6-0 to injured Federer" Gaudio.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Interesting, where do you get all these stats from?

One slam 'wonders' maybe a better term for this breed of tennis genus! I really thought Wawrinka would do better after his maiden victory. Cilic appears to be following the same path...

 

[kOaMaster]

How well did the multiple slam winners for comparison?

 

[Roddick85]

Interesting, where do you get all these stats from?

One slam 'wonders' maybe a better term for this breed of tennis genus! I really thought Wawrinka would do better after his maiden victory. Cilic appears to be following the same path...

Nice to see people finally coming to term with that. Fact is, people are jumping on the hot new thing way too quickly. Winning a slam is a great achievement, but there's a difference between winning a slam and becoming a top guy. Let's face it, any of the top 20 players can win a slam when they get hot for 2 weeks, but thats the difference between them vs all time GOAT like Federer/Nadal/Sampras, even Djokovic. These guys dominated they're sport for years and were very consistent, week-in and week-out. With all due respect to Wawrinka & Cilic, the height they reached this year is very likely to be the peak of they're career. At 29 and 26 years of age respectively, they're not considered young, so the odds are stacked against them.

 

[Bobby Jr]

....How the other players fared to the end of the season that they won their Grand Slam in:

Muster - 1995 French Open - 44-10

This shows what a joke Muster really was aside from on clay. He played 15 tournaments post-French Open, 8 of them on clay - most of them equivalent of 250s. He skipped all the US Open lead-up tournaments.

He skipped Wimbledon because he played a clay court tournament the week prior at St Poelten he won by beating players with an average rank of 124. The next one was Stuttgart (average opponent rank of 58 ). Then Kitzbuhel (58 ), San Marino (81), Umag (94), Bucharest (67).

In the rest of the year he went 31-3 on clay and 4-2 on hard (and 9-5 on carpet) or thereabouts. He also had 0 wins over top 10 players and only 1 over top 20 players until they got to carpet in Oct.

This makes me appreciate even more what players like Ferrer have done. In the 90s he could have done what Muster did - ducking his top peers for over half the season.

 

[frinton]

How does Wawrinka post Aus Open season compare to his last 2 seasons? Would be interesting. For Cilic, let's see in a few months...

 

[okdude1992]

Is that just till the end of the season they were in?

Might be better to do it till the same slam the next year...

Agree, It would give a bigger picture to see the players record and ranking 1 year later.

Some of the players listed are surface specialists, and the USO winners don't have much of a body of work to show for the rest of the season.

 

[Mustard]

This shows what a joke Muster really was aside from on clay. He played 15 tournaments post-French Open, 8 of them on clay - most of them equivalent of 250s. He skipped all the US Open lead-up tournaments.

Muster won a Super 9 event on indoor carpet (1995 Essen), beating Sampras along the way. He won clay-court tournaments at all levels that year, from 250s to the French Open. He had a 65-2 win-loss record on clay in 1995. Nadal in 2005 was 50-2 on clay.

He skipped Wimbledon because he played a clay court tournament the week prior at St Poelten he won by beating players with an average rank of 124. The next one was Stuttgart (average opponent rank of 58 ). Then Kitzbuhel (58 ), San Marino (81), Umag (94), Bucharest (67).

Like Agassi and Sampras didn't play much on clay, and played smaller hardcourt events. Agassi was number 1 for most of the year, yet only won titles on hardcourt. Muster won a Super 9 event on indoor carpet.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

an important title on clay and 2 more slam QFs... wawrinka's record is not that bad !
(well, since the US open... yes it is !)

He had a 65-2 win-loss record on clay in 1995. Nadal in 2005 was 50-2 on clay.

exactly... musterminator would school the nadal.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Muster won a Super 9 event on indoor carpet (1995 Essen), beating Sampras along the way. He won clay-court tournaments at all levels that year, from 250s to the French Open. He had a 65-2 win-loss record on clay in 1995...

So, basically confirming what I said - he took full advantage of the rules of the tour and avoided his top peers for 2/3 of the season. Unlike Sampras and Agassi who - regardless whether they played all the big clay tournaments or not - at least played their peer a lot more often.

Muster was great on clay but pretty overrated in terms of his place in history.

 

[Mustard]

So, basically confirming what I said - he took full advantage of the rules of the tour and avoided his top peers for 2/3 of the season. Unlike Sampras and Agassi who - regardless whether they played all the big clay tournaments or not - at least played their peer a lot more often.

Peer? What does that even mean? I've seen Muster beat Agassi and Sampras. He beat Agassi badly in the 1990 Davis Cup semi finals. Muster excelled on clay, which he played on even more because of the pain that a lot of hardcourt playing would cause his knee. Agassi only won titles on hardcourt in 1995, while Muster beat Sampras on his way to an indoor carpet Super 9 title, yet Agassi didn't get ridiculous stick that year for being a "hardcourt specialist" or some such nonsense.

Muster was great on clay but pretty overrated in terms of his place in history.

Not at all. If anything, he's underrated. Look at his record in tournament finals. At his peak, he won 21 tournaments in just 25 months from February 1995 to March 1997, and many of these were big events (French Open x1, Monte Carlo x2, Rome x2, Miami x1, Essen x1, Stuttgart Outdoor x2) not just smaller ones. Even in his time of clay dominance, he would sometimes stare defeat in the face, and manage to win. The best was against Bruguera in 1995 Stuttgart Outdoor, with Bruguera serving for the match at 7-6, 5-2. Muster came back to win 6-7, 7-6, 6-2. The famous 1995 Monte Carlo final against Becker is well known, how Muster had spent the night after the semi final in hospital on a drip, came back, saved 2 championship points and won 4-6, 5-7, 6-1, 7-6, 6-0.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Peer? What does that even mean?

It means what it sounds like: people around a similar level.

I've seen Muster beat Agassi and Sampras. He beat Agassi badly in the 1990 Davis Cup semi finals.

Irrelevant to the point of whether he spent his prime years spending more time avoiding tournaments where his close peers played than not.

Muster excelled on clay, which he played on even more because of the pain that a lot of hardcourt playing would cause his knee....etc

This should be replied to with: "what is your point - that he had some great results off clay, his knees hurt, he played his peers a few times off clay, and that Agassi did it sometimes too so there?"

I agree. It doesn't alter what I said about Muster in his prime.

...Even in his time of clay dominance, he would sometimes stare defeat in the face, and manage to win.

Irrelevant to my point.

The best was against Bruguera in 1995 Stuttgart Outdoor, with Bruguera...

Ditto.

The famous 1995 Monte Carlo final against Becker is well known, how Muster had spent the night after the semi final in hospital on a drip...

Ditto.

I think you may have slightly missed my point and are defending him against something I didn't say. Muster was a great player, he achieved a lot. But he also concentrated his efforts on points/titles at events where the draws were full of player with a much lower average rank while most of his peers were often elsewhere playing each other. This cannot be denied and is the point I made - it means he's overrated because he avoided facing his peers so often.

 

[Mustard]

I can just as easily say that Sampras and Agassi avoided Muster on clay.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I can just as easily say that Sampras and Agassi avoided Muster on clay.

You would.

 

[West Coast Ace]

I can just as easily say that Sampras and Agassi avoided Muster on clay.

Of course they won Slams on multiple surfaces. Checkmate.

Again, Muster was a great player and his comeback after the car accident was amazing. But your blather is embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.

 

[Mustard]

Of course they won Slams on multiple surfaces. Checkmate.

Again, Muster was a great player and his comeback after the car accident was amazing. But your blather is embarrassing. The numbers don't lie.

The numbers don't lie, that's exactly my point. The numbers say that Muster won 12 titles in 1995, at all levels of the tour.

1995 was the year mentioned in this thread with regards to Muster. Muster had more diversity in terms of surface that year than Agassi when it comes to tournaments won. Muster beat Sampras on his way to winning an indoor carpet Super 9 event. Muster wouldn't have got to world number 1 without that tournament victory, but still came the bitter criticisms from some quarters. As Muster said at the time, he didn't buy his ranking points in a supermarket.

 

[moonballs]

Peer? What does that even mean? I've seen Muster beat Agassi and Sampras. He beat Agassi badly in the 1990 Davis Cup semi finals. Muster excelled on clay, which he played on even more because of the pain that a lot of hardcourt playing would cause his knee. Agassi only won titles on hardcourt in 1995, while Muster beat Sampras on his way to an indoor carpet Super 9 title, yet Agassi didn't get ridiculous stick that year for being a "hardcourt specialist" or some such nonsense.



Not at all. If anything, he's underrated. Look at his record in tournament finals. At his peak, he won 21 tournaments in just 25 months from February 1995 to March 1997, and many of these were big events (French Open x1, Monte Carlo x2, Rome x2, Miami x1, Essen x1, Stuttgart Outdoor x2) not just smaller ones. Even in his time of clay dominance, he would sometimes stare defeat in the face, and manage to win. The best was against Bruguera in 1995 Stuttgart Outdoor, with Bruguera serving for the match at 7-6, 5-2. Muster came back to win 6-7, 7-6, 6-2. The famous 1995 Monte Carlo final against Becker is well known, how Muster had spent the night after the semi final in hospital on a drip, came back, saved 2 championship points and won 4-6, 5-7, 6-1, 7-6, 6-0.

I didn't follow clay tennis before NAdal came to the scene but looks like Muster is quite a fighter.

 

[Boom-Boom]

This shows what a joke Muster really was aside from on clay.

Well spotted.

Nadal is following the same path of skipping non-clay tournaments post French-Open and would have had a career closer to the Muster one if not for the extreme slowing down of all surfaces over the last 15 years.

 

[Boom-Boom]

I was wondering how Wawrinka's win/loss record after winning the Australian Open compares to other one slam winners players in the last 25 years.

Since winning the Australian Open, Wawrinka is 26-15.

How the other players fared to the end of the season that they won their Grand Slam in:

Chang - 1989 French Open - 26-11
Gomez - 1990 French Open - 7-16
Muster - 1995 French Open - 44-10
Krajicek - 1996 Wimbledon - 12-12
Korda - 1998 Australian Open - 22-21
Moya - 1998 French Open - 20-16
Ivansevic - 2001 Wimbledon - 13-11
Johannson - 2002 Australian Open - 20-22
Costa - 2002 French Open - 9-12
Ferrero - 2003 French Open - 27-14
Roddick - 2003 US Open - 10-6
Gaudio - 2004 French Open - 15-11
Del Potro - 2009 US Open - 5-5

Amazing trend, really striking!

 

[Mustard]

Well spotted.

Nadal is following the same path of skipping non-clay tournaments post French-Open and would have had a career closer to the Muster one if not for the extreme slowing down of all surfaces over the last 15 years.

I suggest that you watch a Muster match and watch a Nadal match. Nadal's matches have faster and more powerful play during the rallies.

 

[Boom-Boom]

I suggest that you watch a Muster match and watch a Nadal match. Nadal's matches have faster and more powerful play during the rallies.

Sure, better rackets, physical training and better Spanish "doctors" the likes who also handled cycling teams :mrgreen:

Apart from that, nothing new under the sun, same old lefty forehands moonballs to righty backhands...and dodgy stamina ;-)

 

[Gary Duane]

Well spotted.

Nadal is following the same path of skipping non-clay tournaments post French-Open and would have had a career closer to the Muster one if not for the extreme slowing down of all surfaces over the last 15 years.

That is such utter crap.

Nadal: Age 19: 3 (2005)
Muster: Age 19: 49 (1986)

Nadal: Age 20: 2 (2006)
Muster: Age 20: 49 (1987)

Nadal: Age 21: 2 (2007)
Muster: Age 21: 15 (1988)

Nadal: Age 22: 2 (2008)
Muster: Age 22: 17 (1989)

Nadal: Age 23: 1 (2009 )
Muster: Age 23: 7 (1990)

Muster gets close, at age 23, but after that it's all over. Surface has very little to do with it.

 

[kOaMaster]

How well did the multiple slam winners for comparison?

sorry for bringing this up again, but I don't have the time right now - anyone?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Well spotted.

Nadal is following the same path of skipping non-clay tournaments post French-Open and would have had a career closer to the Muster one if not for the extreme slowing down of all surfaces over the last 15 years.

while i agree that the nadal massively benefited from the regrettable evolution of playing conditions (although his uncle and himself keep whining'n'whining about how unfair it is) the case of muster appears different to me: most of his success on faster surfaces came late in his career, and it seems it was more or less combined with some decline on clay...
(i think we could argue that something similar happened to kuerten)
but we're talking about (remote ?) times when surfaces/conditions were polarized...

or maybe you were talking about muster playing mainly on clay soon after the car incident ?
(but in this case he had a real injury, not an imag'injury)

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I can just as easily say that Sampras and Agassi avoided Muster on clay.

That wouldn't be completely fair, because Agassi and Sampras weren't missing top clay tournaments in order to play smaller HC tournaments, the way Muster did when he played St-Poelen, Stuttgart, Kitzbuehl, St Marino, Umag instead of player the north american swing.

 

[kOaMaster]

Since nobody did this, I had to do my own reasearch. I compared all multiple major winners years after their first GS title (didn't include <1990 since it's hard to compare).

Thanks to http://tennisabstract.com/ in advance. (By the way: I can't set a custom time span for Rafter, no idea why)

Sampras after USO 90: 44-17
Courier after FO 91: 71-16
Agassi after Wim 92: 34-12
Bruguiera after FO 93: 62-22
Kafelnikov after FO 96: 48-23
Kuerten after FO 97: 39-27
Rafter after USO 97: 64-24
Safin after USO 2000: 43-23
Hewitt after USO 01: 66-14
Federer after Wim 03: 74-12
Nadal after FO 05: 66-7 (injured/did not play Oct 05 - Feb 06)
Djokovic after AO 08: 63-20
Murray after USO 12: 50-13

What does this tell us?

The statistics isn't quite comparable to the TO's since he did only look at results until the end of the year whereas I looked up the following year. One thing is obvious to me: If a player wants to win multiple slams, he can't allow himself to drop his level too much after his first win. Obtaining the high standard is key to that. Kuerten & Safin are exceptions, in case of the former explained bc he's a clay courter. Safin seems to be pretty unique. Agassi didn't play a lot after his first GS title.

Consequentially it's pretty safe to say that neither Wawrinka nor Cilic are going to win another grand slam tournament. Perhaps in case of Cilic a bit too early to say but he isn't the youngest either.
Del Potro is unlikely to win again too.